Maria Zakharova's Briefing Q&A

The events happening on a daily basis seem to be picking up and becoming multiple making reporting them more difficult as choices must be made. Today, Maria's Briefing was routine until the Q&A session arrives, which almost always produces excellent points and clarifications. I don't usually post her Briefings as they usually get translated to English and are easy to find. Today's falls on the day after the terrorist bombing of the Nord Stream Pipeline complex and as such has a greater degree of drama and frankness than usual. There is a wide variety, although a few have great complexity, while others are highly volatile. As usual, there are translation errors that I'll not try to correct, nor will I add any emphasis despite my desire to do so in several cases. The Q&A follows:

Question: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced his intention to hold "national consultations" to find out the opinion of Hungarians on the sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia. How would you comment on this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: First of all, this is an internal affair of a sovereign state. In Europe, many are wondering about the negative consequences for national economies and the well-being of citizens of anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the EU. In fact, all this is imposed by Washington. Many wonder about the appropriateness of such a sanctions policy, which is not legal. It does not have the legitimacy of the UN Security Council and has not gone through any international procedures. At the same time, they do not sympathize with us and do not share our approaches. In many ways, they are antagonists of our policy on a number of fronts. This is an objective reality. These sanctions struck, ricocheted back, returned with a boomerang, and somewhere they simply did not hit the target, but immediately fell on the territory of the countries that were used against us. They understand their destructiveness, realize the fact that they cause more harm to the Europeans themselves than to Russia. At the same time, they see how these "waves" spread around the world, note the discontent of other regions with this policy, while trying to point at us. Perhaps this is from Western colonial thinking. They believe that in the countries of the "third world" people still misunderstand something. No, people there understand everything perfectly. These costs, losses and the problems they face are a consequence of the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the West.

Question: How could you comment on the information appearing in the Mongolian media that an agreement has been reached with Russia on the joint implementation of a project to build a hydroelectric power station on the Egiin-Gol River in the north of this country?

Answer: In the course of constant contacts between our countries, the topic of building hydraulic structures on transboundary rivers (in particular, on the Egiin-Gol River, which is part of the Selenga River basin - the main source of water for Lake Baikal) is under close attention and is regularly discussed.

Russia's priority has been, is and will be unconditionally ensuring the environmental safety of Lake Baikal. The Mongolian partners are well aware of the approaches of the Russian side, which have not undergone any changes.

We proceed from the need to continue bilateral expert consultations between the relevant agencies for a thorough comprehensive study of all aspects of the possible negative impact of Mongolian projects on the hydrology of transboundary rivers, as well as the ecology and biodiversity of adjacent regions. We have the appropriate mechanisms: a special working group of environmental agencies has been formed, regular consultations are held between the authorized governments of Russia and Mongolia on the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement on the protection and use of transboundary waters. We consider it important to intensify the relevant dialogue.

Q: How would you comment on the published materials of the Chinese National Center for Emergency Response to Computer Viruses about the June hacker attack on the Northwest Polytechnic University of China?

Maria Zakharova: I have seen the materials you are talking about. This is an attack on the Northwest Polytechnic University of China. It was in June of this year.

The investigation established the involvement of the US National Security Agency in the incident. Numerous facts of theft of confidential information, personal data, long-term espionage of Chinese citizens were revealed. The operation involved 54 proxy servers in 17 countries, including Poland, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Japan and Ukraine.

Washington's illegal actions are another evidence of the course it has taken to militarize the information space. The special services of the United States and its allies systematically use information and communication technologies (ICT) for surveillance, theft of personal data, organization of computer attacks, including "under a false flag". At the same time, they rely on the technical capabilities of American companies that have monopolized the international markets for information and communication technologies. All this has a hybrid character.

The United States is behaving more and more brazenly in the information space. They do not hide their intentions to profit and ensure security at the expense of others, to carry out any subversive activities. At the same time, they blame everyone. Their plan, too, is to assert claims to global digital dominance based on force and to promote a "rules-based order" in ICT. Washington itself is not going to follow any rules. We remember they are "exceptional" – the rules are not for them, but for everyone else.

We are determined to continue to draw attention to US cyber policy to escalate international tensions, to expose the neocolonial plans of Western states, their aggressive and malicious aspirations against Russia and developing countries, and the false rhetoric to protect peace and security in the information space, which they hide behind. The world should know its anti-heroes as well.

Question: How could you comment on Lithuanian Foreign Minister Giorgi Landsbergis' call for the Russians to stage a "mutiny" in Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania called for a "mutiny" in Russia? In its parlance, Lithuania will free itself from the liberal dictatorship and become free. How this will happen: through rebellion or in another way – let G. Landsbergis tell you himself. He is a great expert on "overthrows", "liberations", etc. Let him take care of his country.

I would also like to remind you that the legislation of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for public calls for violence against the elected authorities. I say this just in case for those who have forgotten. I feel sorry for the people for whom such Russophobic attacks, which are outlawed, remain the only chance to raise their own rating and distract the Lithuanian population from pressing problems. They demonstrate, in a political sense, their own insignificance.

By the way, such calls are heard not only from Lithuania. We see that this story is "launched" from the outside. For many years, they have been saying how we will be "reformatted". Let them do their own "formatting". They have a huge number of problems. I say this about the West, and about Lithuania and its political system, which has long been similar to the worst totalitarian practices not only of the Soviet Union (from which it fled), but throughout the world. G. Landsbergis needs to deal with these problems. We will decide how to live in our country. No one cares about his opinion. That's the problem. Westerners cannot accept this.

Question: A scandal has arisen around the Chekhov Theatre in Chisinau related to the dismissal of its director K. Haret? Do you think this decision of the Ministry of Culture of Moldova is dictated by political motives?

Maria Zakharova: I will not comment or go into the details of the legal side of the issue. This is an internal affair of the Republic of Moldova. I wouldn't touch on this topic. But it is impossible not to take into account the general socio-political context in which these decisions were made.

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that now they are trying to impose an anti-Russian agenda on the Moldovan authorities from the outside – and, unfortunately, they are succeeding a lot – and are pushing Chisinau to oust Russian culture and language, to break off cultural and humanitarian ties with our country. There is the undermining of the gas pipeline, and here we observe the "undermining" of Russian culture, which connected the peoples of our countries, specific people, families. They undermine destinies. In this context, one can understand those who believe that the decision regarding the theater and director K. Haret is actually aimed at changing the leadership and subsequent reformatting of the theater, the Russian-language repertoire of which does not fit into the "European integration" agenda of Chisinau. Many residents of the city fear the possible demolition of the theater and the construction of a shopping center in its place. Different variants are called.

Hopefully that won't happen. We clearly formulate our attitude to the sovereign right of any state to implement the rule of law. But the anti-Russian context is saturated with a huge number of decisions made. This is stated publicly. This rhetoric is imposed on people and passed off as "in demand" among the population. In fact, we see that this is not the case. This is also objective data.

If suddenly someone in Chisinau thinks that we have no right to speak on this topic, wait. Those who are now in charge of many political forces in Moldova taught us that human rights and values require close world attention. Moreover, "grants" (powers that have been professing and implementing this approach for many years) do this every day. We always believe that such issues should be resolved in specialized institutions.

The United States and many European countries endlessly tell everyone how to conduct their cultural policy, to comply with the law, including in the context of culture. We haven't seen anything. From abroad, we were told which theatres are correct and which are not, which we need productions, which Russian authors should be erased from world culture, and which ones should be inscribed. We have seen a lot from those who are now "supervising" politicians in Chisinau.

The question needs to be answered. If those politicians in Moldova who advocate Western values consider this normal, then let them consider it normal to apply such standards to themselves. Otherwise, it must also be said that they do not share such an approach, and that every sovereign state has the exclusive right to conduct its affairs in its own country as it sees fit. We need to decide.

Let me remind you that, among other things, there are international documents that regulate, including in the European space, everything that the state is obliged to do with regard to language groups, national minorities, etc.

Question: Does the Russian Foreign Ministry confirm the information about the upcoming face-to-face meeting of russian and US delegations to discuss the resumption of inspections under the START-3 Treaty? Has the date and place of the negotiations been determined?

Maria Zakharova: We have always been committed to complying with the provisions of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

As for inspection activities under the START Treaty, since the beginning of 2020, they have been suspended by mutual agreement with the Americans due to the coronavirus pandemic. The issue of its resumption is being considered. Dialogue is under way through the appropriate channels on how the parties could return to the full implementation of the Treaty in this part of its verification mechanism. First of all, we are talking about the Bilateral Advisory Commission on the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms. Possibilities for holding its next face-to-face session are currently being explored. The Commission is also continuing to discuss remotely what organizational and technical problems need to be addressed. Some of them were removed, while others were significantly advanced. But a number of significant difficulties remain.

I would like to note that the implementation of the essentially routine measures provided for in the Treaty is complicated by the unconstructive, anti-Russian actions of the United States and its partners, which continue to introduce new sanctions bans that impede the normal interaction of the parties. We will strive to resolve all problematic issues in the context of the implementation of the Treaty on an equal basis, taking into account our national interests.

Question: First Deputy Head of the International Committee of the Federation Council, FSB General Vladimir Dzhabarov said that if the investigation of the situation on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines confirms the US involvement in the explosions, then "the situation may change dramatically." What is the current situation on the Nord Stream branches where the accidents occurred? If it is confirmed that the cause of the incident is precisely targeted sabotage, what actions can Moscow take?

A: The situation has already changed. Calls to stop the activities of Nord Stream, which is an object of civilian infrastructure, intimidation of people serving or participating in the project, promises to "finish" the project – is this not enough?

What westerners did to George Assange just because he published authentic documents and analyzed them, wrote articles. They said that he is a national threat to the United States, etc. Here we observe direct incitement. You don't have to be a lawyer. You just need to be able to translate three phrases from English and read them in any language. A direct threat to the existence of a civilian infrastructure facility, on which the largest economies of the continent are tied, and the disruption of the functioning of which can lead (which is now happening) colossal environmental problems. This was done by the first persons of America: the president and representatives of the state apparatus, including the US State Department. And how many information materials have been ordered, planted, prepared for this purpose over all these years – it is impossible to count. Isn't that enough to understand who we are dealing with and really assess the relationship with this administration, with this regime? Everything changed a long time ago.

In this case, it is a question of finding the perpetrators and punishing, if it is reliably established that this is a deliberate subversion. You have already seen the wording of our law enforcement agencies. They use the term "international terrorism". You can check with them for yourself.

We're not just interested. We are one of the owners of these projects and the owner of the supplied resources.

You can contact the Russian company PJSC Gazprom for comments and clarify what losses we incur. A large number of materials were published on how Russia invested in this project, how much we have suffered due to the destructive actions of the Us administration. There was no doubt about it. We've known who we're dealing with for a long time.

Now the implementation of destructive plans begins, which the American leadership announced and promised to bring them to an end.

Now we see this in practice.

Question: There are suggestions that Russia may begin to mobilize in Donbass, Zaporizhia and Kherson as soon as these regions officially join the Russian Federation. Is there any confirmation of this information?

Answer: You are misstating. Mobilization has to do with the citizens of the Russian Federation. All details were published by the Russian Ministry of Defense. If you have further questions, please ask. They respond almost online.

If we talk about the historical context. You mentioned Donbass. Don't you see how the residents of these regions (if we talk about Donbass) have been defending their right to life, liberty and real (and not imaginary) independence from the totalitarian neo-Nazi ideology imposed on them for many years?

Question: Russian Ambassador to Washington Alexander Antonov said that the United States is approaching a dangerous point when they talk about the permissibility of strikes on Donbass, Zaporizhia and Kherson. How does Moscow assess the level of danger of a direct military conflict with the United States or NATO?

A: We've talked about this many times. The wording of our ambassador to Washington accurately reflects what is happening.

Question: Relations between Russia and the United States have been deteriorating for a long time. In particular, there were statements that diplomatic relations could be severed. What happens in this case? What are the practical consequences of such a gap?

Answer: I would not like to go into hypothetical arguments on this topic. We did not initiate the destruction of bilateral relations with the United States of America. If we talk theoretically, then we need to turn to the ideologists of this "movement", and they are in Washington. The United States, not Russia, deliberately brought down bilateral relations. They have done this in different ways over the years: endless sanctions, work aimed at severing our natural relations with many Western countries, restrictions on the work of our diplomatic missions, creating threats and obstacles to the work of Russian business, seizing buildings and structures enjoying diplomatic immunity, kidnapping Russian citizens, subjecting Russian citizens to information and political pressure, blackmailing Russian citizens, corporations, entire segments of society. In fact, relations were dismantled: visa "dirty" games, segregation, interference in internal affairs.

The United States has declared the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia in Ukraine, which actually turns itself into a party to the conflict. I don't know what they have left to do. To announce the severance of diplomatic relations? I don't know how deep they intend to go in their "destructiveness."

We have commented on this topic many times. I won't repeat myself. All assessments of the Russian leadership (the country, foreign policy and other departments) are relevant.

Neither initially nor recently – we have never initiated anything that would hit bilateral relations. They reacted exclusively to unfriendly actions, and in many cases without the wild anger that filled the actions of the United States. They responded neutrally, unemotionally, so that the blow did not fall on citizens, civil society, and the public.

We saw how the United States acted, which simply trampled bilateral relations in a lively way.

Question: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said many times, including in an interview with Anadolu News Agency, that the UN is making serious efforts to export Russian fertilizers to the world market. Highly appreciated the efforts of Turkey in this regard. What can you say about the position of Western countries?

Maria Zakharova: The position of Western countries is interesting not from a theoretical point of view, but from a practical one. They implement their part of the deal only when there is substantive "pressure", including through the UN. Normally, they don't want to do that. Not that they can't, they just don't want to. We expect the UN to step up efforts to get the Europeans and Americans to remove a number of obstacles that do not allow us to fully supply Russian fertilizers and grain to the world market.

We are talking about permission for the entry of Russian ships into European ports and foreign ones into Russian ones. It is necessary to lift sanctions against JSC Rosselkhozbank, which serves the lion's share of all transactions with fertilizers and food. Those same countries (in particular, the African continent, about whose food security the West was worried) pay attention to illogic: they say, they are convinced that they need food and fertilizer, while blocking the accounts of the Russian structure that allows them to pay for it.

We need concrete progress on these and other issues, an honest admission that the Westerners have once again manipulated and are not going to do anything and that they absolutely do not care about the fate of the countries with which they hid behind when they initiated the deal.

Question: Recently, rallies were held in Yerevan demanding Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO. As you know, a number of high-ranking Armenian officials expressed dissatisfaction with the Organization's reaction to the border conflicts with Azerbaijan. How can the Foreign Ministry comment on relations with Yerevan within the framework of the CSTO and how likely is it that Armenia may withdraw from the Organization? Recently, the United States has become more active in the Caucasus, there is talk that Washington can provide military assistance to Yerevan in exchange for withdrawing from the CSTO. How will Russia react if this happens?

Maria Zakharova: The unfounded criticism of the CSTO voiced by some politicians is not beneficial and does not contribute to the search for verified, mutually acceptable solutions. Wherever these politicians are, there is little use for such destructive statements.

Today (September 29) in Yerevan, CSTO Secretary General Sergey Zas presented to Prime Minister of Armenia N.V. Pashinyan an assessment of the proposal on the results of the work of the CSTO mission in the Republic of Armenia (September 15-23 this year), sent there by decision of the leaders of the member countries of the Organization to monitor the situation in certain border areas of Armenia. Prior to this, on September 27 of this year, a preliminary report was presented by S.V. Zasem at a meeting of the CSTO Permanent Council. As you know, Sergei Zas and chief of the CSTO Joint Staff Alexander Sidorov, together with experts, visited the Area of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and assessed the state of affairs on the ground. Additional information will appear on the official resources of the CSTO Secretariat.

As for Yerevan's decision not to send military contingents to participate in the joint CSTO exercises in Kazakhstan this year, it seems that Armenia is acting on this issue on the basis of the priority tasks facing its armed forces, taking into account the current situation. It's her sovereign right.

Our cooperation with Armenia within the framework of the Organization can be described as fruitful and effective. The current chairmanship of this country in the CSTO coincided with a period of special challenges and threats to collective security, which we jointly need to confront. The CSTO summit is to be held in Yerevan, designed to consolidate the results of the Organization's activities for 20 years and outline new prospects for the future.

Question: Regarding the possibility of providing military assistance from Washington.

Maria Zakharova: This topic has been repeatedly commented on by the leadership of our department and through the CSTO.

Question: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, after another aggravation at the border the day before, stated the need to introduce international observers in the border areas. How does Moscow feel about such a proposal?

Maria Zakharova: We are in favour of the full and strict implementation of all the agreements concluded by the three parties to resolve the protracted conflict, which has repeatedly erupted into a dangerous, bloody peak. A lot has been planned. These documents are agreed not just between the mediator and each individual country, but between countries that are part of a long history of conflict. In doing so, they are priceless and constitute a real, not imaginary, road map.

Many people, politicians, public figures both within various states united by agreements (especially within Armenia and Azerbaijan) and from outside want to replace what they have agreed with their ideas. They promise a lot. They can do that. True, not much has been done over the years. There were no results. Our worked out agreements "on paper" did not remain. They are being implemented step by step. Not always the way you want, because you always want the maximum. But at the same time, they work. It is impossible to replace the actual with something imaginary. This is a general rule.

Question: The U.S. Embassy in Moscow has called on its compatriots to leave Russia urgently in connection with the partial mobilization and arrests of American citizens. How can you comment on such statements by the American diplomatic mission and can Moscow respond in kind to Washington and urgently urge the Russians to leave the territory of the United States?

Maria Zakharova: Much of what the U.S. diplomatic mission says remains a mystery. You would ask them what they specifically mean. What kind of kidnappings of Americans (or as they call it – threats, arrests) are we talking about? Who do they have in mind? I would like to remind the US diplomatic service, in particular the US Embassy in Moscow, that there are many citizens of this country who are in Russian penitentiary institutions. It's not just the two about whom there is a heated political debate in the U.S. All these years, American diplomats have not shown any activity about other fellow citizens.

I do not want to say that we work in the image of "knights without fear and reproach." This is the hard work of defending the rights of its citizens. You don't have to go through anything. But all the requests and appeals that we receive are being worked out, and this despite the fact that the number of Russian citizens to whom the US Government created not just difficulties, but unbearable living conditions, is much greater. In many ways, our capabilities cannot be compared with those of American diplomacy. At the same time, we work out every appeal and every case. Both in the United States and in other countries of the world.

If in this case it's just a PR action, then that's one question. If there's anything behind it, reach out to them. Let them explain to you, and you tell us what they meant. Who kidnaps whom and when they visited any of the many American citizens in Russian prisons. Some citizens have been there for many years.

Question: The Biden White House has long begun to speculate provocatively about the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the conflict with Ukraine. Absolutely not logical from the point of view of Russian doctrine, interests and morality. But the stuffing on the American side was made. Now John Sullivan warns us in the program for 60 minutes about the terrible consequences of such a step. What can you say about that?

A: What's the question? Many statements have already been made in this regard. As debunking their "information fuss" when they attribute to us what no one said and vice versa their offensive and aggressive rhetoric using nuclear weapons terminology. We've talked a lot about that.

Question: Regarding John Sullivan's statement. How do you feel about such statements?

Maria Zakharova: The topic of nuclear weapons comes from them. These are the statements of V.A. Zelensky from February of this year, behind which Washington stands, and the statements of the then British Foreign Secretary Leonid Truss, and other statements from V.A. Zelensky to Yulia Tymoshenko that it is necessary to strike At Russia with nuclear weapons. They were made by both a huge number of Ukrainian officials and politicians in the West. They are constantly awakening this topic and returning to it. And they talk freely about it. The question is: Do they understand what they are talking about? Not all of them. No one from Washington ever pulled them away, on the contrary, only encouraged them. There are scarier things. After all, in the view of the average person, nuclear weapons are "something", a bomb, a missile. What do we see now? We see the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, which was shelled daily for several months, realizing that this could entail irreversible consequences comparable to the use of nuclear weapons. Who is firing? We called it the Kiev regime. All pro-Western international bureaucracy is silent or says that "it is not known who is shelling." Someone even agreed that it was Russia that was shelling itself. Then this topic was "curtailed". How is this better than the use of nuclear weapons? Radiation doesn't care how it was released. Whether through the use of "official" nuclear weapons or through the use of "dirty" nuclear weapons, or through a catastrophe at a nuclear facility. For man and for humanity, the consequences are the same. Why has no one in Washington appealed to Vladimir Zelensky or those who supervise or manage him regarding the fact that this facility has ceased to be shelled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There has never been such a statement. It turns out to be beneficial to them. Here is the answer to the question of who threatens what and who declares what.

Question: How is the implementation of the deal on the export of Ukrainian grain and Russian fertilizers going? What role do Turkey and the UN play in this?

Answer: I have already commented. I have nothing to add. Let's get back to this topic in a while, when new facts emerge.

Question: How do you assess the prospects for relations with Italy after the victory of the right-wing coalition there in the elections?

Maria Zakharova: We are ready to cooperate with any legitimately elected government of Italy (as well as other countries). This is our principled approach. We respect the democratic expression of the will of the people, formalized in the form of elections. Everywhere has its own nuances, its own characteristics, its own traditions, its own practice, etc. Our position in this case is unchanged.

Of course, the current international situation leaves a significant imprint on relations with Italy. As a result of Rome's accession to the West's unrestrained support for the criminal Russophobic power in Kiev, key mechanisms of bilateral interaction and dialogue have been undermined, the economic foundation of cooperation, including issues of mutual trade and energy, and contacts on security issues in Europe have been curtailed. Humanitarian ties between our countries are being artificially blocked. A significant destructive role in this was played by the outgoing "rulers" of Italy, who in recent months have fallen into a verbal "fall". Let me remind you that when it comes to a professional in the field of international relations, diplomacy and politics in general, there will always be arguments that can be presented calmly, without breaking down into insults, threats, name-calling. If people resort to this, it means that their arguments are not strong and they are unprofessional to be able to convince others with facts or the art of rhetoric. Accordingly, there are breakdowns. And they belong to Italian diplomacy and those people who were put in charge of it. We've all seen and watched.

It is premature to talk about the prospects for Russian-Italian relations. Everything should depend on the specific actions and steps of the Italian authorities. We did not destroy relations with anyone. We defend our positions, which we argued, which are of an international legal nature. He "suffered" because of the subversive and destructive position of the "collective West". Those who do not understand this are not professionals.

Question: Earlier, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic repeatedly stated that the West would try to expel Russia from the UN Security Council, referring to the fact that it is not the legal successor of the USSR and to Article 108 of the UN Charter. Tell me please, whether the Charter or other UN documents provide for effective mechanisms to exclude any of the permanent members from the UN Security Council and if Russia really found itself outside the UN Security Council, how justified would it be in this case to talk about the existence of a UN organization? How would this affect the entire UN structure?

Maria Zakharova: We must start not from the statement of the President of Serbia, but from what the "collective West" is trying to twist in political science thinking.

It's all reminiscent of something primitive. It seems that people who discuss this topic have not been affected by any political culture, morality and understanding that in addition to their desires and instincts there is a civilization. When people begin to speculate about who and how to exclude them from the UN Security Council, it is as if education has not been affected. As if they are outside the profession and do not understand what the UN, the Security Council are, why they were created and what significance these structures have. It's about primitiveness. This is a person who is outside of civilization. Its driving force is instinct. He is only trying to get out of the shell of the animal and approach the human image.

It's the same here. There's a purpose and that's it. And at the level of instinct, by any means, no matter how stupid and wild it sounds, the movement begins on the heads, on the corpses, bypassing legal barriers. The United Nations was created for this purpose. As a place of conjugation of the positions of countries located at different poles, in order to be able to find compromises, so that force does not dominate the law, so that law and legality have the opportunity to be realized, so that humanity manifests its responsibility, maturity in the decisions of this international legal body. If we start using such methods to "cut down" someone from the information and analytical space, actually "take away the microphone" or simply not let them in, then this will no longer be the United Nations, its Security Council. It will be something else, completely unrelated to the UN. Such formats, where the West dominates – in bulk. There they feel like "kings", "gods", "rulers", "exceptional masters of the world". They're being told what to do. There are many such organizations: NATO, and now the European Union. They tried to make a "summit for democracy" to replace the role of the UN and show how they are ready to segregate everyone by stages of approximation or distance from democratic ideals. Why do they need the un world organization, if they feel fine in all these structures? Then we should leave the UN as it is. Or, if they are not comfortable not with Russia, but in obeying the laws and rules of the UN, then what are they doing there? They always want to impose their own, unhealthy vision of life on everyone in the qualitatively only correct one. This is a classic of neoliberal dictatorships.

Question: ON September 26, US Ambassador to Serbia Karl Hill said that the United States expects clarifications from Serbia on the signing of an annual plan for consultations between the foreign ministries of Serbia and Russia. Why, in your opinion, is this document, which, according to Serbian Prime Minister Armel Brnabic, has been regularly signed between the two sides for 26 years, now causes such a sharp reaction from the EU and the United States? Can diplomat Catherine Hill not understand the nature of such a document?

A: Why are you asking me? Ask the United States on what basis do they blackmail other states, talk to them in a boorish way, tell whom and what to do, order and force them to implement their will? Ask them. We have expressed our position on this matter.

We consider this world order based on American rules immoral. Not just illegal, but immoral. If we were talking about a country, a state or a regime that would show its best qualities for the benefit of the world, perhaps one could also think about it. And they failed that "mission." They can only destroy, destabilize, do it on the basis of provocations, frame everyone, push and engage in staged acts. We will react to their such moves, when they speak from a position not even of strength (they always say that Washington is acting from a position of strength – and this is not true), but from a position of boorishness.

Question: In recent weeks, we have seen a new round of expression by some Western countries and leaders (who consider themselves mediators in the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement) of a frankly unbalanced position towards the parties. Let's just say that the state stands up for one of the parties to the negotiations. It seems that some forces want to negatively influence the situation in the South Caucasus, to provoke a clash of interests. Can you comment on that? Is there a common positive vector of movement of Azerbaijan and Armenia towards the signing of a peace treaty? There is a lot of information. It's not entirely clear what's going on.

Maria Zakharova: We have talked about this before, as have the russian and our ministry's leadership, as well as experts. We noted that we see attempts by a number of extra-regional players to transfer or bring instability to a region that has just received a legal chance to get out of the protracted crisis or to transfer the situation of instability in Ukraine to another part of the post-Soviet space, including the South Caucasus. You can see what attempts to destabilize the situation are manifested and are being made throughout the post-Soviet space. This is an extremely dangerous line.

For its part, our country continues its vigorous efforts to de-escalate the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border in contacts with both Baku and Yerevan. Relevant steps are also being taken through the CSTO. A sustainable ceasefire and the withdrawal of all forces to their previous positions must be ensured.

We see that there are a number of extra-regional players who would like to appropriate the laurels of a peaceful settlement or the implementation of peace agreements. We are not greedy. We are always ready to share our success. But now we are seeing another trend, when they are trying to "put sticks" in the wheels of the implementation of these agreements. This is serious.

We proceed from the premise that the key to stability in the South Caucasus is the full implementation of all the provisions of the trilateral statements of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020, January 11 and November 26, 2021.

Question: It turns out that Moscow is working to curb some negative scenarios?

Answer: No. We are focused on the implementation of existing agreements. We consider this a priority, which in many respects will be a guarantee against destructive trends, no matter who is behind them.

Question: You are engaged in a complex dialogue and it seems that the mutual misunderstanding is based on a mismatch in the professionalism of the parties. Could you announce the level of education and professional specialties of at least some of the leading figures with whom you have to deal?

Answer: It happens in different ways. There are highly qualified interlocutors, partners, allies, maybe even enemies, but having rich professional experience. It happens the other way around.

I think you've touched on an interesting topic. But it's not so much about diplomacy. This is one of the problems of current international relations. But the situation is actually broader. We are talking about such a problem as the recruitment of people into political elites in the West, who (this is how the system is arranged) occupy or claim high posts, while not being professionals. It happens in different ways: they have always been in the party, they know how to attract an audience, they are popular and so on. When allocating portfolios in the government or distributing positions that are important for the implementation of a particular course or in a particular area, problems begin, because these people have nothing to do with the profession. This is a common question for electoral democratic systems. You can attract people in different ways - professionalism, through information technology, other resources (from advertising to live communication) - anything. But then, after these electoral cycles, the real, lively work begins, requiring professionalism. There are such "happy" cases when people were good organizers anyway, or, passing through the career ladder, reach a certain level of professionalism as organizers and can assemble a team of good professionals. Sometimes it's the other way around. And this situation "vice versa", unfortunately, is becoming common. It also applies to diplomacy, when people who do not possess the tools, knowledge or talent can sit at the negotiating table. It's not just us. You can see what exotic professions are often converted into what positions in the West. Therefore, this problem is common. But it is more philosophical, political science. It's interesting to speculate on it, but I'm not sure it's part of my job.

Question: We have learned about a recent meeting between Russian Ambassador to Slovakia Igor Bratchikov and representatives of the Ruthenian community. Is there any more information about this? Did this meeting take place on the initiative of the Ruthenians? Did the Ruthenians turn to Russia with any questions related to their current situation?

Maria Zakharova: Indeed, our ambassadors, not only I.B. Bratchikov, meet and naturally maintain contacts with the current authorities of the host country and with public organisations and, by the way, opposition structures that could have been in power yesterday, then leave the authorities, but at the same time remain active in public activities, and with ethnic groups, and with religious ministers, associations, etc. This is the fabric of bilateral relations. which we talk about so often. Such work is also being carried out through our Embassy in Slovakia.

Question: Now in the territories that voted for joining Russia there are foreign citizens who have been fighting for a long time and defended the Russian world. For example, the Czech P.Michal. What position will these people find themselves in after joining Russia? Won't it turn out that they can defend the Russian world, but they cannot be on the territory of Russia?

Maria Zakharova: I would not like to touch on this topic in general. Each specific case should be considered separately. It's about the legal side of the situation. You are absolutely right that in such cases, when fateful decisions are made, the moral and emotional aspect is important, so that everything is according to the law, and according to conscience, and justice.

Let's start with specifics. Then we'll have to look. If you are in contact with him or with any other people, send us relevant requests or materials - we will sort it out.

Question: How do you see relations between Russia and Latin America today?

Maria Zakharova: This is a friendly region for us. With the states of Latin America, we cherish the rich and multifaceted relations that have historically bound us over more than a century and a half. This includes a political dialogue on a wide range of issues on the global agenda, mutually beneficial projects in the economy, cultural and humanitarian interaction and educational exchanges.

We are pleased to see how objectively the role of your region in international affairs is growing. We consider this process as one of the irreversible directions in the formation of a multipolar and more democratic world order. We and Latin Americans share the importance of dialogue and maintain an open and frank conversation, including on issues that do not absolutely coincide for us, where we have disagreements. We hear and listen to each other.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's meetings with the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and his colleagues from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama on the sidelines of the political week of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly in New York were further evidence of this relationship. There were many meetings during those four days. We maintain a stable dialogue with a huge number of States in the region.

We are well aware that the countries of Latin America are under pressure from Washington, which not only wants to revive the notorious "Monroe Doctrine" to subordinate them to its interests, but also to spread this vicious ideology to the rest of the world in order to turn it into its "backyard".

For our part, we are ready to further develop relations with our Latin American friends, to the extent that they themselves are ready for this. We strive for the development and intensification of interaction. Our approach here is absolutely sincere. We have never had an ideology of "subjugation" of another country, a partner to our interests. We have an ideology of "conjugation" of interests. We never make a choice of "who to be with" – either us or someone else. It's a vicious story. We clearly understand that this is not our way. We are for a mutually beneficial and mutually respectful attitude based on international law.

Question: Will Russia encourage or call on Latin American countries to recognize the results of referendums on Ukrainian soil?

Maria Zakharova: I have spoken a lot today about referendums. Holding referendums in the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions is a matter of expression of will and self-determination of the people who live in these territories. It's about choices that people make. For a long time, they tolerated the treatment of them not as people, but as "individuals", as the President of Ukraine has repeatedly stated. This process takes place regardless of whether someone likes it or not. These people also have rights. They were born free, they are just like you and me – you – in Peru, I – in Russia. They gave birth to children, raised an entire generation in the face of incessant shelling by the government that considered them its citizens. This is all on the continent of Europe, on the continent on which many countries consider themselves the founders of the current civilization. These are the countries that have initiated many international legal instruments in the field of human rights. I am confident that history will put everything in its place, and Russian-Latin American cooperation will cover, among other things, new regions of the Russian Federation.

You asked an interesting question. Will Russia encourage or encourage countries to accept the results? We will tell and provide facts, persuade based on arguments. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these referendums were observed by international experts and observers. Look at the unprecedented pressure they are being subjected to just for going to this region in order to implement the very democracy that is so glorified in the West. This goes back to the wording of your question. Encourage and encourage, yes. You can and you should. And it is impossible to threaten, blackmail, cancel, intimidate and simply destroy in every possible way. Precisely because of this position of the West, which was imposed on the "Kiev regime", in many respects, the tectonic shifts that we are now witnessing took place.

It would be great if you, as a journalist, would pay attention to the reaction of these very international observers. Talk to them. These are people from different countries and regions who acted openly, gave press conferences and interviews. They are available for their assessments, they will tell you what and how they observed there.

Question: How soon will Russian citizenship or a passport be issued to people who voted to join Russia in the referendums?

Maria Zakharova: I understand that you are asking this question from Peru. You may not have been following the situation as closely. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that three years ago in April 2019, by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, citizens of the DPR, JIHP and Ukraine were granted the right to apply for citizenship of the Russian Federation in a simplified manner. This procedure is valid for three years.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 183, the consideration of such applications and the adoption of decisions on them are carried out by the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation within a period not exceeding three months from the date of submission of the application.

Question: You compare Ukraine and the West with the Third Reich, you used to talk about Babi Yar.

Maria Zakharova: Yesterday I reviewed President Vladimir Putin's interview in 2020. The journalist asked the question exactly as you put it. And it was a journalist from the Russian news agency TASS: Do you think the United States of America is a fascist state? The president said he doesn't think so. He was asked a second question, whether he was protecting the United States from such a characterization. He said yes, you could say that. This was said by the President of Russia.

Now about Ukraine. No. Not Ukraine, but the regime, individual politicians who came to power through an unconstitutional coup, including with the help of this nationalist logic, were forcibly brought to power by nationalist, fascist "battalions". At that time, there were both scattered and organized groups. I'm talking about 2013-2014, and many of them were trained in camps in the Baltic states and Poland. So you'll forgive me for not letting you ask a question. I don't want you in your question to attribute to us something we never said or claimed.

I will formulate your question: why did you communicate with Kiev and the Ukrainian authorities at all, if you have such an opinion about them? Is that what you want to ask? Let me remind you, maybe you haven't been following this situation. I was the deputy director of dip in 2014, and we talked about it a lot. Indeed, it was impossible to recognize the presidential elections in Ukraine in 2014, in general, the power that came to Kiev at that time was legitimate. From the point of view of both common sense and legitimacy, neither Poroshenko nor all this US-Canadian "codla" could be recognized by the legitimate authorities. But the Russian Federation did this with the proviso that with all the understanding of the illegitimacy of the procedures they used, we will deal with them, as we give Ukraine, the state and these politicians a chance for a peaceful way out of the crisis that they themselves organized, because in many respects they acted on the orders of abroad. That is, relatively speaking, yes, we see that you came illegally, we know that this is an unconstitutional coup, we see the force that was used. But come to your senses at least now. Look at what happened to your region, which was part of Ukraine – Crimea. Learn a lesson for yourself, pursue a unifying policy on the territory of Ukraine without humiliating people according to national, linguistic, ethnic and other principles. Take this as a basis, and we will move forward with you, building relationships. When all this fell back to the "peak" in 2014, we again gave them a chance – we worked out the first Minsk agreements. Then they turned them into the Minsk agreements - 2 together with France, Germany and 7 years encouraged them all to implement. This is why a chance for negotiations and diplomacy can be realized. Ours talked about the "power" of the West, which can do everything everywhere and always. For seven years, we looked to see if the Western community could put together what had "broken" – they didn't succeed.

Question: You know that many in Washington do not believe that Russia will be able to fulfill the goals of its special operation. What do you think? What is your response to Washington?

Answer: Washington should not "believe" or "not believe" in this. Washington needs to believe in God. It is impossible to create such an amount of lawlessness simply by relying on your exclusivity. There are higher powers. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Americans not only in the fundamental doctrinal documents, but even in monetary units it is written that "There is a God." And if it exists, then it should at least be respected, and not create so much lawlessness and bring into this world so much suffering that, as we see, one by one the American regimes perform. As for our goals and objectives, as stated, we will do everything to ensure that this is implemented. This is not a question of the expansion of territories, not of our financial power, not a question of our vision of this particular situation, but of how the world will develop further. Will it develop "under the boot" of those people who profess the logic of neoliberal totalitarianism, forbidding everyone to have a different opinion and professing such dictatorial "ambitions", or will we still all be free?

Question: Do you have any evidence that the United States is somehow involved in the "vandalism" with Nord Stream?

Answer: Read any detective story. Where does it start? From finding someone who had a motive. So far, it is not even possible to draw any accurate conclusions about the technical condition of the pipeline. Yesterday I had a substantive conversation with experts who deal with this particular technological side. They explained that it would take time.

We are talking about the fact that there is a concept of motive and voiced intentions. They were all voiced by Washington (I have already spoken about this today). They have been saying one thing for years: that this is a threat to U.S. national security. And we know what the U.S. is doing with a threat to national security – destroying. It doesn't matter if it's right/wrong from their point of view. If they set a "goal" and declared that this is a threat to national security (in this case, they said that this is energy, financial, political security). They promised through the mouth of their president to stop all this. It was stopped. It has not been stopped since February of this year, as C. Jean-Pierre said for some reason. I don't know who slips her "all" of it, all these texts. She said that Joe Biden said that Germany would freeze the project, and it would be frozen. No. The President of the United States said that when the tanks cross the borders and the troops are deployed ...

Germany announced a "freeze" on February 22 of this year, when nothing had happened yet. The Russian special military operation began on February 24 this year, but even after that the project was not frozen. You remember how much there was with turbines, and with prices, and with everything else. He acted, he existed. Now it would have to work in full force, because the cold is coming and these energy resources are needed.

As the PRESIDENT of the United States said that they would put an end to this, as W. Nuland said: "One way or another we will stop it." She didn't say "legally," "our partners will listen to us," "we're using all our economic power." She said "one way or another" and added "it's a piece of iron lying on the bottom of the ocean." What else is needed in order to find a side that would benefit from this?

I'm really interested in talking to you, you're from the U.S., Yahoo News, a couple of years ago I gave you a pretty big live interview. I am really interested in talking to you about this.

Who is R. Sikorsky? This is not just a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, even though Poland is an absolute satellite of the United States on the territory of the European Union, and not just an MEP. He is the "flesh of the flesh" of American politics. His wife is a major public figure – a publicist (I believe – a propagandist, a lobbyist for American foreign policy). And he himself is already connected with America. Mr Sikorsky publicly thanks the United States of America for this action and says that he only expressed his opinion on who benefited from it and who had the opportunity to do so. It is associated with the American elite and, among other things, says that it is beneficial to Poland, because for many years all Polish governments have fought against this project. What more proof do you want? What more do you need? Yes, there should be an investigation, there should be an invoice. But we are reasonable people and we should hear who benefits from this, and who has been talking about it for many years. Or shouldn't they? Secretary of State E. Blinken comes out and says that, I'm sorry, in fact, it was not profitable for anyone. How is that not beneficial to anyone? Donald Trump has been talking about this for 4 years, Joe Biden has been talking about it, and both Democrats and Republicans have been talking about it before him, starting with Catherine Rice, who told us how to build energy cooperation with others in Russia. What're you talking about? Or will we live in a surreal world?

Q: How do you respond? Is it a provocation or is it a terrorist attack?

Answer: How will we respond? Investigation. It should be. And it has already been started by our law enforcement agencies. This is our property, resources, infrastructure.

I've always been interested in one question. As with the development of all technological capabilities – outdoor security cameras, all kinds of listening devices, huge opportunities for storing and transmitting information – no major investigation is brought to an end. Everything seems to dissolve. Although many of these crimes were committed on the "air", like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. And no one knows anything. All ends in the water.

There is hope that if we are talking about explosions, and here the experts unequivocally said that we are talking about something that has no natural origin, that this investigation should be carried out to the end. I want to tell you that you probably do not know that an attack on civilian infrastructure that is related to the life support of civilians is equated with a terrorist act.

I hope that someone in the United States, or maybe someone in Europe (although, unfortunately, europe in this case can no longer be counted on), someone from independent investigators will have a desire to clarify the involvement of the United States, special services and all other bodies in what happened on September 25-27 this year in the Baltic Sea. I know why many are silent. Because they see what they did to John Assange and what they would do to Snowden. They understand this perfectly well and therefore remain silent – they are afraid. Let me remind you that this applies not only to one country, but to the entire planet.